PEOPLE v. TILLMAN (2001)

 County Court properly denied the motion of defendant seeking suppression of tangible evidence seized by police officers from his person and the automobile in which he was a passenger.   Because the People did not charge defendant with criminal possession of a weapon based on the statutory presumption in Penal Law § 265.15(3), defendant did not have automatic standing to challenge the search of the automobile (see, People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 361, 540 N.Y.S.2d 757, 538 N.E.2d 76;  People v. Reynolds, 216 A.D.2d 883, 629 N.Y.S.2d 355, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 801, 632 N.Y.S.2d 514, 656 N.E.2d 613).   Nor did defendant have standing to challenge that search by virtue of his status as a passenger in the automobile (see, People v. Brown, 190 A.D.2d 1003, 1004, 593 N.Y.S.2d 624, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 968, 598 N.Y.S.2d 769, 615 N.E.2d 226).   Thus, the court properly concluded that defendant lacked standing to challenge the seizure of the .22 caliber handgun from the automobile.   Defendant's apparent attempt to dispose of two .22 caliber rounds of ammunition while he was in the police car constituted an abandonment of those items, and the court therefore properly refused to suppress them (see, People v. Williams, 243 A.D.2d 761, 762-763, 662 N.Y.S.2d 635).   Finally, the third .22 caliber round of ammunition was lawfully seized from defendant's pocket as the product of a search incident to a lawful arrest (see, People v. Dillard, 212 A.D.2d 1029, 1030, 623 N.Y.S.2d 463, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 734, 631 N.Y.S.2d 615, 655 N.E.2d 712).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: